Starting immediately users who do not comply with Rule #2 and have their actual name as their Display Name will be banned. Please go to your User Control Panel and edit your user name to be the name your mama gave you. It is simple to do and will save you a lot of hassle.

Hillary is promoting her book. If she committed crime, and she hasn't, then why not prosecute her? Because there's no crime. She's touring the country making money on her book. Free as a bird.

OTOH, yes, I can see the future and the future says jail time for Trump and anyone in his orbit. At a minimum, I hope Trump uses every bit of his campaign funds to fund his and his son's legal fees. Bankrupt (again) him I say!

The Russians interfered with our election and helped elect Trump The Lump. And to quote a line from another movie, "A Few Good Men," with the quote delivered by Kevin Bacon's character, "those are the facts and they're indisputable."

Larry, Larry, Larry...were you in a coma when one of our governmental agencies (most likely the CIA, but yes, my memory is fuzzy on which governmental agency it was) definitely proved that the Russians were meddling in our election? I can't imagine how you could possibly have failed to hear about it...after all, it was during the early months of Trump's "Reign of Terror".

Regardless, Larry, the issue has been referenced here on this political thread numerous times. You're a smart guy, but not smart enough to put on a convincing "DUUUH, I don't remember EVER hearing about anyone saying the Russians definitely did interfere in our election" act.

...again, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see...and that is definitely an accurate description of you if you think we're buying into your "Gee, I never heard of anyone definitely proving it".

No cheers for you, Larry...only for those who see through your "Columbo" inspired state of confusion.

Doug

Dougy, Dougy, Dougy...go back and reread what I've been addressing from the word 'go' during this latest exchange: THE ACCUSATIONS vs. LACK OF EVIDENCE - let alone PROOF - that Trump, his family and/or his campaign were colluding with Russians to 'rig' the election or whatever OTHER skullduggery the left would like the public to believe - NOT whether the Rooskies had tried to meddle in the election or not. I then asked you (repeatedly) for the "evidence" that Trump, et al, had collaborated with Russia. You dodged the question. I then contrasted the accusations about Trump with the fact that Billary was roaming around free as a bird even though there's a trainload of actual evidence that she did in fact commit many legal no-nos (Comey testified to that) and OUGHT to be in prison.

The same 'authorities' you referenced who've said the Russians tried to meddle in the election ALSO SAID there is absolutely no evidence they were able to jury-rig its outcome...in fact, they said there's no way they could have 'hacked' the vote because of the way the machines are or are not connected to this-or-that...whatever. But, in any event, when former CIA Director Brennan was asked by Gowdy whether there was any actual EVIDENCE of collusion with Russia by Trump or his campaign, he ducked and dodged, played word games, and finally said something to the effect he "didn't know"! When pressed, James Clapper said much the same thing...and as I mentioned before, DNC BIGGIES have flat-out said there IS no evidence.

So, yes, I DO KNOW about Russia's attempts to meddle in the election...but, that's NOT what I was addressing. I think you know that.

Dougy, Dougy, Dougy...go back and reread what I've been addressing from the word 'go' during this latest exchange: THE ACCUSATIONS vs. LACK OF EVIDENCE - let alone PROOF - that Trump, his family and/or his campaign were colluding with Russians to 'rig' the election or whatever OTHER skullduggery the left would like the public to believe - NOT whether the Rooskies had tried to meddle in the election or not. I then asked you (repeatedly) for the "evidence" that Trump, et al, had collaborated with Russia. You dodged the question.

Larry, Larry, Larry...no, I did not dodge the question, at this time we are still waiting for the investigation that WILL provide the proof to complete its work. A whole lot of people are going to be involved and POTUS Trump will be right in with all of those crooks. Heads will fall and (hopefully) perps will spend some time in a cell thinking about their actions.

There WILL be proof forthcoming...hope you like crow, you're going to get to eat quite a bit when the facts are finally all in.

Don't worry, Larry...we won't let you forget. In fact, we'll remind you on a regular basis.

Cheers to Mueller and his diligence in conducting his investigation

Doug

__________________
YD,E./PNB
Alís RIGHT...Buy American!!!
Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

With what I've observed in this forum, "evidence", "proof", and "facts" have zero impact on what the reader thinks. These three things will always be explained away by some justification, thus the presenting of such information always ends up being a study in frustration in that no opinions will ever change, no beliefs will every change, and no concessions will ever be made.

__________________
Terry

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Larry, Larry, Larry...no, I did not dodge the question (yes, you did...until right now), atthistimewearestillwaitingfortheinvestigationthatWILLprovidetheproof...

I think you meant "...for the investigation TO provide the proof" rather than, in effect, saying "waiting for someotherinvestigation that WILL provide the proof"; but, whatever.

Regardless, what you're saying is that all the left has right now is ACCUSATIONS with no sound evidence or proof to back them up...which has been my point all along...forwhich you and your sidekick have been adamantly deriding me. So, evidently you two have just been arguing with me for arguments sake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YerDugliness

A whole lot of people are going to be involved and POTUS Trump will be right in with all of those crooks. Heads will fall and (hopefully) perps will spend some time in a cell thinking about their actions.

There WILL be proof forthcoming...

More accusations/suppositions stated as absolutes! You know none of that to be true at this point and yet everyone accused is absolutely guilty simply becausethey've been accused!

And THEN there's Billary's situation. 'Mucho documented "evidence" AND "PROOF"...and yet she remains free as a bird.

Where/how Comey came up with his "cannot prove INTENT" hogwash as his 'CYA' justification for not recommending Billary be indicted is totally beyond me. As I've mentioned several times previously, anyone who's handled classified material/info KNOWS one's "intent" or lack thereof is NOT - NOT - a valid defense against having put classified info AT RISK let alone causing it to be compromised. (If there's one thing that gets hammered into the head of every person who goes thru the government's 'classified info' course [when I took it anyway...and I doubt things have changed in that regard] it is that your butt WILL be grass and Uncle Sam WILL be a lawnmower if you EVER put classified material at risk in any way for any reason under any circumstances. PERIOD. And you don't EVEN wanna know what'll happen to your sorry self if you cause it to be COMPROMISED. To my knowledge, even to this day no one is/has EVER been told, "If the FBI cannot prove you INTENDED to put classified info at risk - you'll skate." The standard has always been, "Did you, or didn't you.")

The fact that we now know Comey was preparing/had prepared Billary's EXONERATION statement a couple of months BEFORE he'd even interviewed her (and, what, seventeen[?] other people?) regarding the charges at hand all but proves that the 'fix' WAS 'in'...and it appears as though it still is today.

'Time for me to take a little vacation from this thread. 'Past time actually. At this point I'm reeeeaally tired of it.

Not likely...he's too busy trying to limit the free expression of our country's athletes to care about little stuff like world geography.

Cheers? Not for DJT!!!

Doug

__________________
YD,E./PNB
Alís RIGHT...Buy American!!!
Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A bunch white people trying to understand the plight of black people over the last 300 years in this country. Simply amazes me.

I'll quote Jim Mora, the former football coach, who said "You think you know, but you DON'T-KNOW, and you never WILL, okay?

On a slightly different note:

And I love how Dum-Dum said that Stephen Curry "hesitated" to come to the white house, so the Warriors are "disinvited." Being an avid Warriors fan, I know that Stephen Curry, months BEFORE the Warrior's won the championship in June, said that he wouldn't go to the white house, if the Warriors won the championship. And he reiterated his stance when they won the championship. And he said AGAIN before Dum-Dum "disinvited" him for "hesitating."

Curry NEVER hesitated. He was never coming. Dum-Dum just makes this S up as he goes.

Not that I agree with Trump saying what he did, but is "free expression" what we call the disrespect of the National Anthem and Flag now? No other country in the world has people that do this.

I think this has already been addressed by the Supreme Court, Al...back when radicals were burning American flags in protest of...well, whatever they were protesting. IIRC the S.C. declared it to be protected expression under the First Amendment...but I could be wrong....it's been a while and I've slept since then.

Remember clenched fists being held high when the National Anthem was played at sporting events like the Olympics? Similar, non-verbal protest...I would rather see athletes take a knee than have their rights of "free expression" curtailed.

If the owners want to stop the practice they can structure the contracts the players sign to require whatever they want...including standing rather than kneeling, etc...if it is a pre-disclosed "condition of employment" noncompliant players could lose their contract.

...not that I believe that would solve the problem, the players could always voice their opinions outside of the game setting in other manners.

What would be so wrong for The Donald to just STFU about this issue? He's very likely trying the old "divide and conquer" bullying tactics we've seen from him many times.

DJT is just wrong on this issue...and if the owners follow his suggestions they could easily be sued for wrongful terminations.

It looks to me like the owners are with the players on this issue, though...standing with their players in united protest to what our POTUS has suggested. Good for them!!!

Doug

__________________
YD,E./PNB
Alís RIGHT...Buy American!!!
Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'll go ya one further. What does the National Anthem have to do with sports at all?

If you change the TV channel away from Fox News, you might learn something. Peaceful protest, civil disobedience, Muhammed Ali, Tommy Smith, John Carlos, Colin Kaepernick, etc. If you celebrate America, then you celebrate someone's right to peacefully protest the American Flag and/or the National Anthem.

Again, this whole Trump-National Anthem controversy is just a distraction from Trump's failure as a president. He's done nothing and continues to do nothing.

And it also takes heat off himself from the Russia investigation, collusion, obstruction of justice and Kushner's use of a private email account.

I think being the owner of a team, you can tell the players to do anything you want while they are on your dime.

I think they can, Al, as long as it is a "condition of employment" that is disclosed at the time of employment. Otherwise, I could see that employees who were "FIRED!!!" for exercising their rights to freedom of expression could sue that employer for wrongful termination...and even IF the employer would win the case they would still have lost potentially huge sums of money defending themselves.

What would be wrong with The Donald just stopping the devisive rhetoric all by himself???

Freedom of speech aside, it just seems like the right thing to do for our country. I mean, after all, I DO REMEMBER hearing Trump say he would be POTUS for ALL Americans...he said nothing about "...unless I don't like what they say or how they say it!"

__________________
YD,E./PNB
Alís RIGHT...Buy American!!!
Retired twice, now back at work, but still attempting to age disgracefully To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.